Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
OF
DHARMAKIRTI
The Logic of Debate
V A D A N Y A Y A
O F
DHARMAKIRTI
The Logic o f Debate
ISBN 81-7030-380-X
PRINTED IN INDIA
Preface
Pradeep P. Gokhale
November 15,1992
Contents
Preface v
Abbreviations xi
Introduction xiii
Parti
Part II
61 On Arthantara.
62 Criticism of Nirarthaka.
63 Criticism of Avijnatartha.
64 Criticism of Aparthaka.
65-68 Criticism of Apraptakala.
Do incorrect words make sense via
the recollection of correct words?
69 Criticism of Nyuna
70 On Adhika.
71-74 On Punarukta.
75-78 Criticism of Ananubhdsana.
79-80 Criticism of Ajnana.
81 On Aprtibha.
82-84 Criticism of Viksepa.
85 Cri deism of Matanujna
86-87 Criticism of Niranuyojyanuyoga.
89-91 Criticism of Apasiddhanta
92 O n Hetvabhasa as nigrahasthana.
93 Epilogue.
Notes 151-181
Glossary 183
Abbreviations
VDANYYA
P arti
Definition of
Occasion o f Defeat1
3WT <M^RH<1Ml<5PR
t^SHH., 3 F T 5 ^ ^ f t r c ( % ^ l l
3. 3T^fq 1 I
W n^Erfiffrl MKI Wrf: TTCTlsqcl T^l W -
RFF ^T, *IsN ^ - qzif?: ^fl
This and other subtitles given in brackets have been introduced first in
D. They are not in R.
DEFINITION OF OCCASION OFDEFEAT' 5
^ ^ ^ SiyfuidvW
ycbKW<i*rM3j
^ ft ^ f MHIuMc1l w H w & l
3pqn TfiFf W R t ^f%R:l
6. [An Objection-]
But here non-apprehension is not the means to
knowledge because the pervasion of the non-association
with succession or simultaneity with the absence of capasity
is itself not proved.1Hence there is no pervasion of the
earlier probans (realness) (with the probandum
momentariness). If you proceed to accept (another)
probans for (proving) this (second pervasion), then there
will be the danger of infinite regress.
[Answer] That is not correct. Because you have not denied
(successfully) the non-apprehension as the
means to prove absence.
(Which kind of non-apprehension is called the
falsifying evidence in this case?) That non
apprehension, which proves the absence of
probans in the case in which there is absence of
probandum, is called the falsifying evidence
because it establishes the opposite of that (=
existence of probans in the absence of
probandum).
In this way the probans will be proved as absent
from the case in which probandum is absent, if it
(= its existence) is falsified by the authoritative
contrary evidence. Otherwise if the evidence
falsifying it (= the existence of probans) in that (=
the absence of probandum) is not established,
8 VDANY YA OF DHARMAKRTI
tit
V9. -J: w fh w M F
cp if farfl
TT^RTT ^ f o g H^fl
wT*fci ^rati
^rf^l: W 5W FI; THT^*lfaTSIlJ ^ :
dFi f a tranrraireniR-
w - ^rf', dd^
d ^ j ^ dd*Tl% d d d fd f f l
TdfFftft 3 d f ^ f t l 4 ^ K H I : l fd d ^ F d d :
TdddJ ^ f f 'dfd dc(d4
fa e ifd i
yPdMTjycqwfa'HIW*RJ 17-
5
*0. 3q^|pq
l^iil'Wyrd^RTFn: f w f i t 5 ^ p ^ R :|
3 R T ^ I ^ K ^ d ^ H ^ S ^ l P d c h : , fay<f>58f Tdwpc^^TFT
S R F IW IT O W
w n rfo r, amcwfa ^ is %
DEFINITION OF OCCASION OF DEFEAT 15
TRcfWT, UgliWdPlPftfWI
W qpH^ft m M ,
q ff qPHc^kP^KI xrcf>'i|qq$Rfc{j
fqr qtc*imf !
in 3 ^ F lt %
cftT dcH H P M 5fq ^ fasq fl W . ^ T$f
T^eff^TRfri | feH^f^TW mT?
^ t s f q 1% Tj^TsfeTftwt *#g :, ^ r ^ i f ^ i m
^ T ^ p M s f -^qiRRl -^ T^PT:!
Vv ^l Uk 41'jHII ^S S J: w j s p c n
Trf^cnFTT ^
w : ifl
if] 'F^l
iw r
1 R-llf urail
s. (R); - (D).
DEFINITION OF OCCASION OF DEFEAT 19
'T s fa c^f^TPTT W ^ f T
^ Wf F W i:
sfai y P a <vThAhi^ sr[?
Vd. VmRwfl'
srfoqrcd fa>HicKUiH7
W f ^ l 3TC ^'4dli<^<r*KH9b*fl H: ^
Tcn- ainsqrai:, ^
Qi cn^FT ^Tl
22 VADA N Y A YA OF DHARMAK1RTI
STcTT^^T
?q%T8ff^7T^: i s n M N s p n ^ iK T f ^ T ^ ; ^ f ^ h -
^ ulblB<;6Hiir*W^:, cTSTT " ^ ly cqq ^^TR^^cMrlHI-cMI-
t^ s ff^ I^ rl
cinfq ^tsf?rara: ^ ff
qrcTf^rri
tit
j i ^ R RTTcp - 1'TIcT W
fas
1 % ^ 5 R ^ i^ R t^ R ^ T ^ fc T ^ T c z p ^ | H5 I^ d n -
^TTtFR^I
^ W gT T H if^T ^H ^ W l f t , 3 | f w ^ l ^
3Tfe^:l
3TpT^[ - *l|cHf?Tf1dH^
[... rW H H :
y<jroPi^inqi sfid
3TFn ^ ^ TPffriPfffdfftT
xR t '^ T O I : P h ftiR l d l^ 'H R c !?
<TR 4*HHPiRl^^^miPclPd
R 'CR^cTYs^f -IcrgK-
fa*lFT:?
ld<l*T
ff?i H f^TTc^l
^ ^ Wi ^ (A cR ZF^T:!
iff: FIl^l
tfcq^drW^rTcq-il5^qT ^1 :,
^ ^ ^Tclf^fq w tc fR lS ^ q :,
? (R); ^ ? (D).
v (V); ^Utfffcl ^ - (R) and (D).
34 VADANYAYA OF DHARMAKlRTI
Flc^fafd F , c1^dMRRT ^ q
FI, 31^id*<rMIFTFlcI?
tTFTPrqif^W tyi^
FFfdl
DEFINITION OF OCCASION OF DEFEAT 37
h R u |R1:I
*pf ifa ^ ^ f a e # , w w iT w rR i ^ %
w ^ u u w r a K ^ c r ^ ^ R f r s f e ii
T g S R f F T fc | = h < r M : T P W t f d , ' 3 W I T ^
qRailHrl
t t
^ sCTl^faTTH, f i t crff?
gfe: R Qot g tl:,
yyiRtinw^rrcdi^i
M-tdlRdl HdW'd^lTyj ^ f?
3 ^ # ^ ^ : 3 r f d y T q f W M w T I 'q ^ w R m : , 3 R H ^fg:|
[Answer:] You have said this but what you have said is not
correct. Because there is no (third) possibility
apart from thatness and otherness in the case of
any real thing. Because thatness and otherness
stay in a real object by excluding each other
essentially. Therefore abandoning one of them is
invariably concomitant with accepting the other.
And fingers being subject to destruction every
moment, the spread fingers are different and the
fist is different.
Here the words like fist have the particulars as
their objects; the word fingers has the universal
as its object. For example the words like seed,
sprout (apply to the particular states of rice) and
the words like rice (are general terms). Therefore
the spread fingers are not the same as the fist.
m ^ jR g ^ c i tfrs'Risnwi
irat ^TT^ ffc ^ 1 : m4'3%I:I
if^iw ^ ^ t '^nfei, ^ ;nfei ^
M i : , era
W T R ^^i f If W fT F t ^ ^ R T W f a il
f ^ < ^ y R iw ^ ^ r :, 3itf5rer^i
M P ^ I [ ? fFTTH^ STCWsft]
3 *. [
- cFFfo fntrrPT yRi dl m ^ PiJm 1ft e iw fv i
H E m i ^ w <r ^tffatrRTcij
'iTT5FzNrftT ^1 TTT^HTJ41-a
fW R fT T Jlw i,
DEFINITION OF OCCASION OF DEFEAT 47
^ ^ , ^qrfqi
tTFfWRRHJ
3Trr s^rrg r^ fW n ^ m [? a n ^ n -
[ ?3TOTmi^FT] W l f t
.34H'clvTHK-M
t t
3TO^nf^ETRTcI_l
V "tRlf^n ( ?) : *TTf5R:, i n f e p r i ^ ^ ^ i P H f c l l
Q^T: :R f f : RfrR^fst>dHiuiyd^-
^ y ^ c i , ^IcWldlicpI^ t T W f s f t W ^ l
^ T :l % ^ 5 T :? ^ fg F T * 1 W T : ? T T W 7 ^ R c n :l ^ fg t W ^ ?
ETFT ?TTCF) R^TTSPffa: Wfacfrl : 'JR'id'dlW fa:? "RPR <l4ld
R F T H k + H J c h l ^ i t i 4 R ^ IF T '- i k c b H ? l t d 3 R T ^ * H I ^ J ^ cT cT :
3lfV?l id : ifa q ^ , TjiiREf | lifd^lO c i ^ 4 ^ ^
i T H i f i T T ^ T T r f ^ R T : c f ^ R T T W K : !
s r f ^ n jw c ^
t. (R); - (D).
(V); - (D).
DEFINITION OF 'OCCASION OF DEFEAT 53
3<a.
f^lR id 'fM % ^ *Rf? f? cTFTlfa
RffcFFll 'q y
dlfdcqfliiufe:!
54 VDANYYA OF DHARMAKRTI
fR ^ T if e tp to ^ ^ ^TtRT^ w & i, 1
dcKl^rl
^TTf^R:
3TETCYT ^IFdT'HTOTSI
^R T^^IW TrfcP ^t ^Pc1dlP<H:
56 VADANYAYA OF DHARMAfiiRTI
^ ^T: ^ h fc ls fq
'awi<^M^MfiniRif^irn#r ^ traraitsyfireii^ls m \ M
tt
^9. [ '31$ ]
RdWMK:l
^ cT8Tra^%T: 3nfrFTT^TcFn ? IR ^ R
^ ^ ^Fmr^rfBT 'R fe^hf^qr4diii y ^ M i
cr^rc*pmf u f^ q tic fe r fc i ^ \\
^Rsi m r<r<0 qh ir<Pwfrfd w pm sw tppt
iK IpS W enfi^I
f fT fe R , feqtxRfqePn^l W ^ w m ^ i s ^ t s f q *r:
crfgrrat ^
t^ ct ?f <ra yfci^m<-Mlfy'0T ^ W ra N te ra i,
raiRRhraT: ?i^t5fra:, vrapR N ^rar^' ifcf
3rfirarta^?T -irafa w pF#!
ir ir a T q iM w to w r a r a te r a ^ i f i ^Tfcn ^n^ract w #
* n ^ t raRTf^mt w n ra :, W Hwf^rafaraip
cTFf^FNi 9 0 # ! : , ^ W Pi<lhrfoti:|
Refutation o f the
N y c iy a - V ie w
3V s p j t j ^ '^fH icI % ^ l ^ r n y ^ W H c r i ^ i ^ T f e T ,
cfFT
[* .] y f a ^ M s m f a p p FT^OT% TrfcHTFT^T:
^P^rcil 'ciircichchKl'qtWcfq^W,
<r^j pfei
%f^cTSZT:l
fcivfKTtS^T
x't>i\ui sriwT MicwieiPiRRn
'wwft isA'dlft
w m f w T : , -q m tw isii
REFUTATION OF T H E NKAFA-VIEW 67
yfciM^rciitfrtc! twifq % w rP T fq ^ f^ r?
fI
[ 2 .] "
[^T. 5.23] yRlWcilSSffsftcq: (TFT
X. (R); (D).
70 VADANYAYA OF DHARMAKiRTI
t t
*3. ^ "SfWRit ^yPd^W ltR l^iki sfcfftl ^
erf!? ? f ^ W ^ I
el^T WT^I
^ F T :I
[ ? arPT^n^iir] M w -
frl#T %<Tt: Ms+iHlcl^l
ffdl
c (V): (?)
REFUTATION OF T H E /VEAFA-V1EW 75
'to.
t \ \ r t I
ifarc i c ^ s f q ttrtct
cicf)52if^RW5qerf^l':,
^rafbiwiiMeiraiwrei ^nfar
[ ?] f f t faM ^U m H i^fa^
Q^fcTI ftwrftRRui, l^cjfaq: *fl%cfT: [ ? TlfemMi:]
faffa JZ : 1
[ ? yfatfitjcq):] foftq:, Mfaf<eKiMmfa ^M Pn^dPiJ^5
d ^ f a ^ l l ^ d ^ l c l f a otfPcr^q v f ^ |
aroiRT?f?5irai: ilRf3Wl:
if 5 % f ^ f^EiTORT^ T55FW ^
rTfiTiKZRTTCRr1! 3^*11 tScfhlFT
1% 'SpfrTt ^ IgiitoFI
REFUTATION OF TH E NEAKA-VIEW 79
tt
<a. V : : VIid*1NIsntrH|fa<1 W w - ^
ffcll TO i-lididiy^M:, Tift TEITc^l
... cMdAdoWld?] I
'ddldPl^llclJ
^ 5 fq ,'57Ftttv"q^:T ^ r r ^ ieznf^n W T F f t ^ w , ^
tiff? m:
"iTtsftf ^ d^*dd^Ei) 'TcR TT^ffd ^ f^Rfa:!
sift ^ - w fc m tpif
xffcii
^^FiSiT M * i:l
M)
3T5rKioi41i| ^FTt4f4ftT w i : i <r*n *tfci
ftng^i i TfeRT fu ft-
%3:l
a rfe sfsr^ ; ^ %wimi ^ ^ hi44 i-44 * n f4 rt4 t
cfcfcf^q f1%l
TRF
sm: yftisiiPu'te:, %#rd*ir
yfd*llfa<|snai
- HWcMk^RlI JlfiEll|?eft: M<W<fc|^4Vl^<uIHv- I p ] ^ t <;Wri:lrinrc(l
3 rf^ ';T R < ^ ^
h ^ ert: i T r to n % %cM^
W 3 % p i ^rf^TT ^IG7?f ff?f ^*T:I
H W W W m M TT : I 3 T ftft
ir^T5'?ntiKuT:,|
c l^ :I fl" 3ifW^T: ^N t
^ w f ^ g R ) ^ fwfcrtT*fafd ^ s r T ^ r f a ^ s f q fctitafar-
fT5TRipfm M I '^ir^fH fd d IU< r ^ c T T f ^ t c T t f t S F T : I
cM V fdW " ^E R T fcM tw^WHfcTpRf^l
STTMTtJTc^' ^T,
tit
ms. ^ J l l W l I d ,
w R U d JilcdiRdi
" 5 ^ cti ti 1%w i Trfcrq^r
w rq fd i
W fa ct $ Wtzf ^ 3 o [ W q # ( qcf,
mRs Rui trc*Rntid
^. q ^ J R - ' ^ R T W ! tcq T ^ R T ^ R q i^ R f a q i ^ -
qfaqr ft% q "'JR Pm^W i^cKii: ffq R'qqqqRrqTfqqls'gRqj
q ts q q q R * ^KRI^dt: [^ E R ^ T t:? ] 3 R , cIFi q ^ W f -
q^TT ^ERTRifrfR^lfR!, flg-'I'H f i F R WTfRUHTq-
y^-idj
srfq q - q M w c i; ^ q y q r f R t ic q rq ra iw T Y f r r t
f^RRRTW tfH cT^FRRTtfH %cqT'qTRTqq%^q <JTbMlftl q
TjsHMMirn ^ : i
f e ^ s q f W F R q r f R R # , aroqsiFT fa w u y ^R ld l
tt
VU [ v . ] 3lf?t?ira^ira:r
yrd^IdH^43Tfrc*I: i f ^ : V j^ c f V c ^ t Rt
3^1 f a ^ [ W T ^ ' q f l c ^ f t i ? ] , ^
H Tjifa? SfRpj^ cT [ ? 3#pj^tcl] TJcf
m fra^ n r^ , w rm H F i
g w M 'q ^ rra ft ^it^i c T F n ^ fq ^ h ^ I h R h
3TFT - T1MI!>i<^fl,1lActiM<Jic]'1l ^ ^g
q fo p ifa fin
++
K ] [^T- %
%c[:l W lj
^^H IH I^IdlM rflM ldrsid HIHIdlid ITSTOta* nH
[V S .] 0 |u i s b H p 1 ^ 1 c i i 5 R 8 i ^ l [^ T i. \.R.6] W
^ ihi^hkhi^ Ph^
i ^ ttm -
Ipn^F I ^ R 'iTTUj fa 4l Pidl Sfat^TFT[*iRTc[,
M ^ uisbMPi^Nr<Ri * ^ h m :
['iirs -^ ft? ] 3R5?R ijfiTfn fc*Tcfa: fftl
+ +
[ . ] 'qtferfc?irc(<ri [-^i. tj.
y firaiRn i^ i fa %w cl i*ri sw k h hdid
frP fw irH fo i
102 VADA N Y A Y A OF DHARMAKlRTI
ftw i ^cjj
srrs^Tr^wwFr^ ^ u Pa 3 1<{1 P i'p p d ? i-s^iiq^ m^ i^:
^f^^ldyfclMKHiHIH^ ifir H FTETfHil^rt 3mHlfalft
ft^ A A R f h fsrafamtf [fa3% R p ^ d id i ? ?]
PiU^WHiHfdl
tit
FWSfF^TcII
M w n w i? [
5 ^ T :l ^ xi F F T P 4 :I ^ FT p iR R ftfil
^ # T f ^ l ^ u^ir<ch
3 ST ^ F J 'T ^ R ^ s fq qdlPdRPdl
31<d*W-qW Tl^SuiydlPd'dddMI
^V9. ^rq u -
THT l t d ^q * f' 1
^ 1 ifai
w r g g c in f a b - W F T i -qWTrl
H |u ) t ||i ) c b |^ H S T ^ T T I
fw f^ r vkw w rftte ro tw
fc r l: % fWT:? ^ t^ ^ in f^ jq ^ R :!
^ l l r *Nh^ Sc r i 1 ^ ' Pl 4 ' ^ ^ 5 ^ 'RP^?
x tr ^>fp5s^ 'sqrter: TMt, *f y^&A Hm<i^ RikI ff
^. 3icncircm4i)sft*iftftoi eNdni
raft '^ iu c iifd :'; -inWcU A ire RcWdlftTftsft
qreira '3 r a w : ,
ra i^ ftftiq fti:!
{. [ u . ] ' [^ n . v
T 3 ra ^ ^ T n filt:l
R 14fdmf<clHJ
^ ^(IHIHrM fa u S lM m :!
vs. [ ^ . ]
c T ^ llw n ^ F T ^ tferszf^l
tnc(i chi(ji[i ji^4chi ftw -
"SPT^Wri c^ ftWMMlfcPdl
k. In the light of NBh 5.2.13. The word used in NBh Is SRToRFT; But Tc^TF! -
(R) and (D).
116 VADANYA YA OF DHARMAKIRTI
W d ?TTfd ^ T # F ^ 4 Wff^TCtftfdl
FTFmftshld W i y ^ P d ^ rf d ll
w w ic k )w
yftlifra'-tFTfofd 3 T 8 i T m T i c ^ I 5 i ^ s tp c ^ q j
3 I# I ^ W ^ T :, ^ f^R?R^SMT^I
^ cf? f a n a ^ H i
ifcT
yjn^Tc^, Q^m<+.iiTUii ^ iR im fir^ c ^ r^ i
^Pcf'TlfcFi f ^ t T f ^ H : ;
M m ^ i
3Ti: TrfcTTOM f w t l
t t
W . *1'' ^11I'^ i l M9x\ : I
w '^ W M ^ ii^ y fa iiiR i: hmmhh, ififi
"SfdiWQ^ [T^?]
ftw rq j
74. What has been said (by the author of NS, may be
considered now) - In the case of confirmatory repetition (=
anuvda), it is not a Repetition (as such) because (there)
some special purpose is served by repeating words. (NS
5.2.15)
[Vtsyyana explains:] For example conclusion (=
nigamana) is (defined by the author of NS in NS 1.1.39 as)
restadng the Declaration on the basis of probans.
[Dharmakirtis response:] Stating the Declaration the
meaning of which is implied (by the premises) is itself a
Repetition, what to say about the restatement of it! In this
way (stating the) conclusion is inadequate.
(R); - (D).
v (R); supported by V, - (D).
REFUTATION OF TH E ATA FA-VIEW 121
Piu^ mPh Ri i
cl-irHlv>! dcjf
TQ^; 37Rftft
^ w ^ i i*n t |i 3 r m ifi wi 3t*iji
++
vsv [ * v ] [ ^ n . < a . r .v*] finara
* n f c f T K ^ d T O ftlTSWRHJ 3Tf ^ ^
U<Rldq'i<lcqi^d<Rmrd<!ld^rd failgWITOH;
d' df f d r * T uI W ^ ^ 1
3T5TRH:
"d'dtdNd ^ dfd ^ fHildWHHJ 3TTOI "03
[ ? sw fd w n ] PiMqdcdid)
128 VDANY VA OF DHARMAKJRTI
t t
o. f ff? fatWNHHIijlct
TrrniFTFl fa ^ I I tK I:dH M I ^ f
fa w ^ T R ^ R -sFncftff w n iw r ts fe i i
WW 'Ip ^ B m W : w f f W F i ^T T ^I
3 # r ^ - ^ R ^ r f ^ t Iw ^ n w f'T i^ T F R ^
-4I ^ h PW; ^ tb fa fd l
^TfWPcfb ^ T ^ s f W ^ ^q[ : T O ifffl
'iTTtHcMHH'iK'
q q q ^ q ^ iy P c I'-M I HilSWMlHll
w r f q qfa q ^r^cR q
qqrfqqqTqtqtrftR: q r f c q qr%, ft
fa&q: Fifi ^ q q q fa rc w f rsjRntq; awqsfqiqqTfqqHicf
^Tl y^cWmHWM^yPdMrlS^RtoT*i5FTri^^faracll
3lPdyy$ld414d<|U|W^M<UmddWyPdyPd^^^^fHlJi>WT-
cqq^HIM^) 3Tl^T:l
+t
3. TTcfer yftmfd:, ^
STfwgr
^ W T h ^ S ^ q ^ T T tF T W q ; 3 F W ^
civH^fN t^T^TW fd^Tl: #
^ ? if ^ifcNclfdl
T J ^ T f a * P S I r* jtl> T ; 3 T j q w * n t
3 T ^ ^ F ^ < im R fq
p r o ^ ^ sTTwrm^i
W m ^ W F R q i 3WTq^fl^crq'Hftft f t w ^ l i f t f t l
k- [<.3
^ szrf^rarrirci t Ri ^ i
$ qmKKI 3#T odd^KI cTfcrsffTI
. [ ^ . ] 'HUyiHWirHU^: ['^1.'^. H-
3. 'T M tou ^ t ^ T : l cTFltfm ftfyra
W R 5 # T :I ^ F qrrsTEi:' I c^ tF Rjcq,
Tt H O T : W ^ mW f ^ W ' l ^ l
arsnfq ^ 'd ^ 4 ^ % , stt-
shnFRRralNW ^N^Rmi
^d4 WRT^rrT^yPclMK'liq/ \ ci4H m -
fVrTPTr^n
because ( (1) the proposer has not won because) due to the
fallacy of proof there is no (proper) argument and because
( (2) the proposer has not been defeated because) (his) real
faults have not been pointed out (by the respondent).
'in?#? ^ 4
WHi$rarqsfai?u ^TCiwfcPTi^n^i
rfFTT^rft ^
[Answer] It is not the case that all the faults must be spoken
outjust because they are real. Nor is one defeated
just because there is non-statement (of some
fault). Because even a single (real) fault vitiates
the proof like the statement of a single probans.1
That is as follows (= yatha). When there exist
many probans for one (provable) object, all the
probans are not employed since the object is
proved by a single probans. Therefore the one
who points out (only) one fault does not deserve
defeat for not pointing out some other fault; as
(we have argued) before.
Now if the proposer does not claim the defeat of
the respondent who has reached the defeat,
there is neither victory nor defeat of either of the
debaters as in the earlier case. It is not the victory
of the disputant (= proposer) who does not set
aside the respondent from his argument when he
(= the respondent) utters a fallacious refutation,
because it amounts to non-justification of (ones
own) argument on the part of the disputant. That
is because he (= the disputant) does not justify
the constituents of his argument by
demonstrating the impossibility of all faults. Nor
is it the victory of the respondent, because he
does not point out any (genuine) fault.2
Therefore, Neglecting the objectionable is not a
ground of defeat in this way also.
t +
. [*<>.] " a q f to fw ft f T U ^ R r ^ T l fTT^VTPpfn:!1
[^n. A.^. 3 3 ] HTTWiyW
STfYfcT qt f a >1^1dl c|cKlcq: |
142 VADANYAYA OF DHARMAKlRTI
fa Tlffalftcl ^ P F i m s r f a f a P i^ ld ffifl
w r f t ^ % ^ ^ ^ f ^ i 3 T ^ f t lfwiF<ron^qf t ^ r w T
iHilS**lHcfa d<=kT<*ll:, d^W|omOPklHi%fin
(V); rs n W F tM Iw i - (R);
REFUTATION OF TH E NKAK4-VIEW 143
t t
f^ ta rl cl*T T T fiit f ^ T R T :,
H 1 1 ^ :,
F ffcTI #5-q ^
^0.
t t
W ^ s T R ^ :,
^ M ^ f% r4 T iy u iq c i^ ^ d ^ slf cR ^T ^'R T ,
c Z R m f^ R te n f^ f , ^ R fd l
^IFf fW:,
+t
SfflfT eTf8rRT?f^<IW^,
qiFTFT fW W FTM T, ^ i ^ u f r g f t R i i
c i i ^ i ^ -?[pq TJofTCWWIHHJ
[^rriR^HNlWchlRi^KUIHIH,]
Efrron : II
Meaning: Since atoms of earth get conjoined with the
mud (= A tryanuka of earth composed of six atoms?) at once,
therefore -since the atom has no dimensions, it will be
united with all the atoms in the same point of space and
hence the cluster of atoms will be of the size of an atom
only.
(52.1) This case of contrariety is called contrariety of
probans (to the Declaration) based on falsification of
Declaration by Dharmaklru in section 50. The earlier type
of contrarity was contrariety of Declaration and probans to
the means of knowledge as referred to by Dharmakirti in
section 47.
(53.1) The idea is this: The contrariety between probans
and Declaration may take form of two fallacies - Contrary
probans and Unproved probans. It probans exists in the
locus, then probandum does not exist there due to
contrarity. If on the other hand probans does not exist in
172 VADANYA YA OF DHARMAKIRTI
3T51H ( - - Non-understanding
- transgression (of reason)
aiftRBT-excess
- (1) Not pointing out a fault (2) Pointing out a
non-fault as fault.
srftW ( - Piiis**IPT) - Additional
( - Pii4t*lH) - Non-reproduction
(^ei-dl^TRT) - Positive instance without positive
concomitance
- Occurrence of (vicious) infinite regress.
SFfTvlf^T - non-apprehension
- non-apprehension
- confirmatory repetition
( - %C^T^TRT) - Inconclusive probans
- accusation of Inconclusive probans
- (1) positive concomitance (2) continuity, continuous
capasity
184 VDANY YA OF DHARMAKlRTl
lifdill - Declaration
3lf<T3RR - Another Declaration
(- - Contrary Declaration, (Lit.-)
Contrariety o f/to Declaration.
( - Pme**iR) -Renunciation of Declaration
yicweilH ( - iHneWH) - Declaration-abandonment
opponent, respondent
- diffuse discussion
yMiui - evidence, means to knowledge
- object of knowledge
- (1) occasion, context, (2) undesirable consequence
'iusi<rl<2H'<t(<l - the allegorical principle viz. (one plays a
gimic)like the picture drawn by a buffoon
(- - Permitting opponent's view.
eiiMq - economy, (Lit.-) lightness
- inferential sign, probans, reason
TK - debate (Dharmakiru), discussion between teacher and
disciple or co-disciples for knowing truth (Nyaya)
disputant, proposer (of the first position)
fasfa ( - Plil^<flPt) -Dispensation
- debate between persons desiring victory (even by
cheating practices)
facial - negative debate (debate in which the other's
position is confuted without establishing one's own)
fayfdMfrT - non-apprehension, non-understanding
fsRTS - contrary, contradictory
( - ^M'TTiT) - Contrary probans
GLOSSARY 187
- self-nature
- self-nature as probans
- the self-characterised particular
- Declaration contrary to its own
utterance
t l - probans, reason
fjcq-iK ( - Pin^WH) - Another probans